Villainage　in　England：　Essays　in　English　Mediaeval　History
  by　Paul　Vinogradoff
  1892
  First　Essay
  The　Peasantry　of　the　Feudal　Age。
  Chapter　One
  The　Legal　Aspect　of　Villainage。　General　Conceptions
  It　has　become　a　commonplace　to　oppose　medieval　serfdom　to　ancient　slavery；　one　implying　dependence　on　the　lord　of　the　soil　and　attachment　to　the　glebe；　the　other　being　based　on　complete　subjection　to　an　owner。　There　is　no　doubt　that　great　landmarks　in　the　course　of　social　development　are　set　by　the　three　modes　hitherto　employed　of　organising　human　labour：　using　the　working　man　（1）　as　a　chattel　at　will；　（2）　as　a　subordinate　whose　duties　are　fixed　by　custom；　（3）　as　a　free　agent　bound　by　contract。　These　landmarks　probably　indicate　molecular　changes　in　the　structure　of　society　scarcely　less　important　than　those　political　and　intellectual　revolutions　which　are　usually　taken　as　the　turning…points　of　ancient；　medieval；　and　modern　history。　　　　　And　still　we　must　not　forget；　in　drawing　such　definitions；　that　we　reach　them　only　by　looking　at　things　from　such　a　height　that　all　lesser　inequalities　and　accidental　features　of　the　soil　are　no　longer　sensible　to　the　eyesight。　In　finding　one's　way　over　the　land　one　must　needs　go　over　these　very　inequalities　and　take　into　account　these　very　features。　If；　from　a　general　survey　of　medieval　servitude；　we　turn　to　the　actual　condition　of　the　English　peasantry；　say　in　the　thirteenth　century；　the　first　fact　we　have　to　meet　will　stand　in　very　marked　contrast　to　our　general　proposition。　　　　　The　majority　of　the　peasants　are　villains；　and　the　legal　conception　of　villainage　has　its　roots　not　in　the　connexion　of　the　villain　with　the　soil；　but　in　his　personal　dependence　on　the　lord。　　　　　If　this　is　a　fact；　it　is　a　most　important　one。　It　would　be　reckless　to　treat　it　as　a　product　of　mere　legal　pedantry。*　The　great　work　achieved　by　the　English　lawyers　of　the　twelfth　and　thirteenth　centuries　was　prompted　by　a　spirit　which　had　nothing　to　do　with　pedantry。　They　were　fashioning　state　and　society；　proudly　conscious　of　high　aims　and　power；　enlightened　by　the　scholastic　training　of　their　day；　but　sufficiently　strong　to　use　it　for　their　own　purposes；　sound　enough　not　to　indulge　in　mere　abstractions；　and　firm　enough　not　to　surrender　to　mere　technicalities。*　In　the　treatment　of　questions　of　status　and　tenure　by　the　lawyers　of　Henry　II；　Henry　III；　and　Edward　I；　we　must　recognise　a　mighty　influence　which　was　brought　to　bear　on　the　actual　condition　of　things；　and　our　records　show　us　on　every　page　that　this　treatment　was　by　no　means　a　matter　of　mere　theory。　Indeed　one　of　the　best　means　that　we　have　for　estimating　the　social　process　of　those　times　is　afforded　by　the　formation　and　the　break　up　of　legal　notions　in　their　cross　influences　with　surrounding　political　and　economic　facts。　　　　　As　to　the　general　aspect　of　villainage　in　the　legal　theory　of　English　feudalism　there　can　be　no　doubt。　The　'Dialogus　de　Scaccario'　gives　it　in　a　few　words：　the　lords　are　owners　not　only　of　the　chattels　but　of　the　bodies　of　their　ascripticii；　they　may　transfer　them　wherever　they　please；　'and　sell　or　otherwise　alienate　them　if　they　like。'*　Glanville　and　Bracton；　Fleta　and　Britton*　follow　in　substance　the　same　doctrine；　although　they　use　different　terms。　They　appropriate　the　Roman　view　that　there　is　no　difference　of　quality　between　serfs　and　serfs：　all　are　in　the　same　abject　state。　Legal　theory　keeps　a　very　firm　grasp　of　the　distinction　between　status　and　tenure；　between　a　villain　and　a　free　man　holding　in　villainage；　but　it　does　not　admit　of　any　distinction　of　status　among　serfs：　servus；　villanus；　and　nativus　are　equivalent　terms　as　to　personal　condition；　although　this　last　is　primarily　meant　to　indicate　something　else　besides　condition；　namely；　the　fact　that　a　person　has　come　to　it　by　birth。*　The　close　connexion　between　the　terms　is　well　illustrated　by　the　early　use　of　nativa；　nieve；　'as　a　feminine　to　villanus。'　　　　　These　notions　are　by　no　means　abstractions　bereft　of　practical　import。　Quite　in　keeping　with　them；　manorial　lords　could　remove　peasants　from　their　holdings　at　their　will　and　pleasure。　An　appeal　to　the　courts　was　of　no　avail：　the　lord　in　reply　had　only　to　oppose　his　right　over　the　plaintiff's　person；　and　to　refuse　to　go　into　the　subject…matter　of　the　case。*　Nor　could　the　villain　have　any　help　as　to　the　amount　and　the　nature　of　his　services；*　the　King's　Courts　will　not　examine　any　complaint　in　this　respect；　and　may　sometimes　go　so　far　as　to　explain　that　it　is　no　business　of　theirs　to　interfere　between　the　lord　and　his　man。*　In　fact　any　attempt　on　the　part　of　the　dependant　to　assert　civil　rights　as　to　his　master　will　be　met　and　defeated　by　the　'exceptio　villenagii。'*　The　state　refuses　to　regulate　the　position　of　this　class　on　the　land；　and　therefore　there　can　be　no　question　about　any　legal　'ascription'　to　the　soil。　Even　as　to　his　person；　the　villain　was　liable　to　be　punished　and　put　into　prison　by　the　lord；　if　the　punishment　inflicted　did　not　amount　to　loss　of　life　or　injury　to　his　body　The　extant　Plea　Rolls　and　other　judicial　records　are　full　of　allusions　to　all　these　rights　of　the　lord　and　disabilities　of　the　villain；　and　it　must　be　taken　into　account　that　only　an　infinitely　small　part　of　the　actual　cases　can　have　left　any　trace　in　such　records；　as　it　was　almost　hopeless　to　bring　them　to　the　notice　of　the　Royal　Courts。*　　　　　It　is　not　strange　that　in　view　of　such　disabilities　Bracton　thought　himself　entitled　to　assume　equality　of　condition　between　the　English　villain　and　the　Roman　slave；　and　to　use　the　terms　servus；　villanus；　and　nativus　indiscriminately。　The　characteristics　of　slavery　are　copied　by　him　from　Azo's　commentary　on　the　institutes；　as　material　for　a　description　of　the　English　bondmen；　and　he　distinguishes　them　carefully　even　from　the　Roman　adscripticii　or　coloni　of　base　condition。　The　villains　are　protected　in　some　measure　against　their　lord　in　criminal　law；　they　cannot　be　slain　or　maimed　at　pleasure；　but　such　protection　is　also　afforded　to　slaves　in　the　later　law　of　the　Empire；　and　in　fact　it　is　based　in　Bracton　on　the　text　of　the　Institutes　given　by　Azo；　which　in　its　turn　is　simply　a　summary　of　enactments　made　by　Hadrian　and　Antonine。　The　minor　law　books　of　the　thirteenth　century　follow　Bracton　in　this　identification　of　villainage　with　slavery。　Although　this　identification　could　not　but　exercise　a　decisive　influence　on　the　theory　of　the　subject；　it　must　be　borne　in　mind　that　it　did　not　originate　in　a　wanton　attempt　to　bring　together　in　the　books　dissimilar　facts　from　dissimilar　ages。　On　the　contrary；　it　came　into　the　books　because　practice　had　paved　the　way　for　it。　Bracton　was　enabled　to　state　it　because　he　did　not　see　much　difference　between　the　definitions　of　Azo　and　the　principles　of　Common　Law；　as　they　had　been　established　by　his　masters　Martin　of　Pateshull　and　William　Raleigh。　He　was　wrong；　as　will　be　shown　by…and…by；　but　certainly　he　had　facts　to　lean　upon；　and　his　theory　cannot　be　dismissed　on　the　ground　of　his　having　simply　copied　it　from　a　foreigner's　treatise。　　　　　Most　modern　writers　on　the　subject　have　laid　stress　upon　a　difference　between　villains　regardant　and　villains　in　gross；　said　to　be　found　in　the　law　books。*　It　has　been　taken　to　denote　two　degrees　of　servitude　　the　predial　dependence　of　a　colonus　and　the　personal　dependence　of　a　true　slave。　The　villain　regardant　was　（it　is　said）　a　villain　who　laboured　under　disabilities　in　relation　to　his　lord　only；　the　villain　in　gross　possessed　none　of　the　qualities　of　a　freeman。　One　sub…division　would　illustrate　the　debasement　of　freemen　who　had　lost　their　own　land；　while　the　other　would　present　the　survival　of　ancient　slavery。　　　　　In　opposition　to　these　notions　I　cannot　help　thinking　that　Hallam　was　quite　right　in　saying：　'In　the　condition　of　these　（villains　regardant　and　villains　in　gross）；　whatever　has　been　said　by　some　writers；　I　can　find　no　manner　of　difference；　the　distinction　was　merely　technical；　and　affected　only　the　mode　of　pleading。　The　term　in　gross　is　appropriated　in　our　legal　language　to　property　held　absolutely　and　without　reference　to　any　other。　Thus　it　is　applied　to　rights　of　advowson　or　of　common；　when　possessed　simply；　and　not　as　incident　to　any　particular　lands。　And　there　can　be　no　doubt　that　it　was　used　in　the　same　sense　for　the　possession　of　a　villein。'　（Middle　Ages；　iii。　173；　cf。　note　XIV。）　Hallam's　statement　did　not　carry　conviction　with　it　however；　and　as　the　question　is　of　considerable　importance　in　itself　and　its　discussion　will　incidentally　help　to　bring　out　one　of　the　chief　points　about　villainage；　I　may　be　allowed　to　go　into　it　at　some　length。　　　　　Matters　would　be　greatly　simplified　if　the　distinction　could　really　be　traced　through　the　authorities。　In　point　of　fact　it　turns　out　to　be　a　late　one。　We　may　start　from　Coke　in　tracing　back　its　history。　His　commentary　upon　Littleton　certainly　has　a　passage　which　shows　that　he　came　across　opinions　implying　a　difference　of　status　between　villains　regardant　and　villains　in　gross。　He　speaks　of　the　right　of　the　villain　to　pursue　every　kind　of　action　against　every　person　except　his　lord；　and　adds：　'there　is　no　diversity　herein；　whether　he　be　a　villain　regardant　or　in　gross；　although